[mattraibert]

It might help if you would explain how you think this juror indicates to you that the jury was well informed. When I read this I definitely do not see what you see. Here, I'll break down what I see when I read this:

He begins by saying that 'interchangeable' is most important element to determining prior art: "more importantly, it had to be interchangeable". Then he moves on to explain that "the key [to determining if something is interchangeable] was that the hardware was different ... and more modern software could not be loaded ... and run without error." In other words, if the code doesn't run on the old hardware, then it's not interchangeable and therefore not prior art.

Then, in one of the paragraphs that you brought in, he indicates that he's summarizing and repeat ("the 40,000 foot-level"). He says that the "methodology" was different. Here he uses "method" or "methodology" to mean code. You can see this in this quote from elsewhere in the interview: "when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same" and this one: "you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work". So again, he's saying that if you can't load the new code on the old machine, you don't have prior art.

It appears to me, from your quote and from the article, that he believes that running new code on an old device is "the key" to determining prior art. Is this the informed position you're talking about?